Bankruptcy Filing Set New Record in Calendar Year 2002
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reported that a new record high in bankruptcy filings was established for the 2002 calendar year. There were a total of 1,577,651 petitions filed during the 12-month period ending December 31, 2002, an increase of 5.7% from the previous year, when 1,492,129 petitions were filed. The previous record for filings in any 12-month period was recorded in the Judiciary's fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001-September 30, 2002) when 1,547,669 filings were reported.
Features
Preventing a Haven for Wrongdoers
The current economic downturn has resulted in a huge number of bankruptcy filings by publicly traded companies. During 2001, for example, a record 257 publicly traded companies filed for bankruptcy. The telecommunications sector was particularly hard hit, as 14% of those bankruptcies were filed by publicly traded telecom companies.
Answering to the Regulators
Insurance companies, like any other segment of today's fragile economy, have shareholders, creditors, insureds, and regulators to whom they are answerable. They are hardly immune from the ups and downs of so-called new economy companies, nor the more time-tested old economy companies. As such, what is the likely result from a jurisdictional and regulatory standpoint of an insurance company seeking relief by the filing of a bankruptcy proceeding?
Don't Pay Twice for Your Equity!
In certain cases, a company may seek to exchange its outstanding debt for equity while also extinguishing (or 'squeezing-out') the interests of some or all of its prior shareholders. The need to reduce or eliminate shareholders typically stems from perfectly valid business reasons, including a desire to avoid becoming a reporting company under federal securities laws, to limit ongoing obligations to many small shareholders or to change the equity sponsor. In addition, the parties may seek to effect the transaction 'out-of-court' due to a perception (or the reality) that bankruptcy proceedings would take longer or damage the business.
Features
The Bankruptcy Hotline
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
How to Avert or Survive a Software Audit
<i>Ed. Note: One would expect law firms to consider it beneath them to deliberately have staff members ' or those of an ancillary business ' use illegal software copies. But the potentially high cost and embarrassment that can result from even tacitly permitting violations of software licenses should merit proactive attention by firm management.</i>
Don't Pay Old Equity That Is Truly 'Under Water'!
As discussed last month, the law clearly shows that parties structuring cash-out mergers with distressed debtors must focus on two things: 1) timing the debt-for-equity exchange (and the resultant debt cancellation) so not to occur prior to the merger's effective time, and 2) demonstrating that the debtor was at 'the brink of bankruptcy' at the merger's effective time. A clear record should be built and maintained on these points, and the structure should accommodate the technical legal requirements.
Exceptions to Dischargeability
For many years, financial or securities executives knew that if they had not committed a fraud or had not been fined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), they could get a discharge in bankruptcy by filing for Chapter 7 or 11. Negligently committing a securities violation would not preclude a bankruptcy discharge for the civil liability flowing therefrom.
Insurance Assurance
The insurance market is undergoing turmoil as a result of recent trends, including terrorism, corporate scandals and skyrocketing healthcare costs. Premiums are soaring, causing firms to cut back on coverage or to cut into their profits ' choices that could have a profoundly adverse impact on the firm's future success.
Features
Measurable Results Through Profit Centers
Profitability pressures are leading firms of all sizes to create and implement strategic plans. These strategic plans often call for expansion and growth of practice areas, growth through lateral hires, or creation of entirely new practice groups. Concurrently, partner compensation methodologies are being revised to hold individual attorneys accountable for their own results.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- The Article 8 Opt InThe Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.Read More ›
- Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult CoinWith each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.Read More ›
- Clause & EffectNet-Profit Rights/Movies Based on TV Shows<br>Insurance/Contract-Breach Exclusion<br>Insurance/Copyright-Infringement CoverageRead More ›
- Rights and Obligations In Patent LicensesThe owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.Read More ›
- Foreseeability as a Bar to Proof of Patent InfringementThe doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.Read More ›